Can ecological economists stop the mainstreamers before it's too late?

User Rating: / 11PoorBest

by John Feeney

16 July 2007

Editor's note: There is a whole, sinister cultural context for growth and economics. Western industrial culture must reward -- and defend with deadly force -- exploitation for private gain. This has been institutionalized and codified, with economists as high-level priests and lackeys. If the system's inevitable crash does not result in a universal, cooperative and nature-loving lifestyle -- retiring ivory-tower economics as a specialty -- we may not achieve sustainability. For now we can enjoy the following insight on the thinking of conventional economists who piously eat at the corporate/academic/government trough. The author's website project, Growth is Madness!, is the basis of this special report for Culture Change. - JLÂ

Mainstream economists are trying to kill us. They don't think of it
that way, but they should. The standard policies promoting endless
economic growth of the conventional sort are destroying the ecosystem.
Converging and interacting with other threats such as population
growth, peak oil, and excessive per capita consumption, such policies
and the economic growth they promote are hastening a looming global
ecological collapse. And when influential economists push ecocidal
policies when they could instead play a central role in protecting the
ecosystem, how is that not homicide?

Cue the white hats

A ray of hope, though, comes from that transdisciplinary group of
economists, ecologists, and others whose work falls under the heading,
"ecological economics." Those concerned with the environment today
need to understand how this group compares to their mainstream
counterparts. Herman Daly, one time economist for the World Bank and
now one of the most influential ecological economists, has argued
persuasively that the mainstream or neoclassical model sees the
economy as "everything," with the ecosystem being merely one element
within it. Because this acknowledges no physical limits, it allows for
the irrational notion of endless growth.

The ecological economics camp pushes for a fundamental revamp of
economic theory to account for the limits of the ecosystem and the
economy's being a part of it, as dependent upon it as any other aspect
of human culture. They want an acknowledgment that economic growth, as
it's typically understood, cannot continue indefinitely on a finite
earth. They want it understood that such growth is unsustainable and
destructive to our natural life support system. [1]

In a confusing twist, a subset of neoclassical economics is known as
"environmental economics." Its practitioners are often pitted in
theoretical debates against ecological economists. Environmental
economists retain the fundamentals of neoclassical theory, including
its failure to acknowledge the limits of the ecosystem. They attempt,
however, to apply minor tweaks to the theory in an effort to account
for environmental impacts, ultimately trusting the market to wield its
"invisible hand" to make everything right. Most other neoclassical
economists do little at all to to account realistically for the
ecosystem.

Ecological economists thus find themselves at odds with a range of neoclassical economists ranging from traditionalists who see no need for any special considerations for the environment, to the "environmental" group which acknowledges it may be wise to include environment considerations in calculations and measurements, but insists the traditional model is up to the task. [2]

Entrenched thinking

Ecological economics has so far found only minimal acceptance among
mainstream economists. Most mainstream economists will say they simply
disagree with the ideas of ecological economics to such an extent that
they refuse to incorporate them. But what do they disagree with? The
fundamental differences between the two camps seem to boil down to a
few issues on which the ecological economics camp's arguments are
essentially irrefutable or, at worst, eminently more reasonable than
those of the mainstreamers: The ecosystem is finite. All human
activities and cultural entities, including our economy, are a part of
it, dependent on it, and subject to its limits. And the physical
throughput associated with ongoing economic growth is degrading it.

The concerns of ecological economists reflect those of of natural
scientists who point to the risks we face in allowing our actions to
degrade our planet's biodiversity. Our actions have damaged the web of
life, that system of millions of interdependent species on which all
life, including our own, depends. The extraction of oil, burning of
fossil fuels, and resulting climate change has teamed, for example
with the use of land as a resource for activities such as ranching to
drive deforestation, a major driver of species loss. As a result,
extinctions are now occurring at 100 to 1000 times the normal
background rate. Scientists such as E.O Wilson and Richard Leaky are
calling it a "mass extinction event," the sixth such event and the the
heaviest loss of species since the disappearance of the dinosaurs.

Do we, as one species, as dependent on the web of life as any other,
think we are exempt from the risk of extinction as a result of the
loss of ecosystem services provided by other species? It's a question
paralleling the ecological economists' question, "Does our species
really believe our economy, one of our cultural creations, sits apart
from or is greater than the ecosystem which supports us?"

Mainstream economists' failure to incorporate the fundamental
observations of ecological economics has the look of entrenched
thinking, closed even to clearly superior alternatives. What might be
the mainstreamers' motives in holding fast to what seems an
unsupportable position? It could be they simply feel most comfortable
with economic theory as they've learned it, that change is unsettling.
Most likely, there's more.

Having witnessed a few other theoretical turf wars, this writer
suspects some economists, having invested their professional lives in
neoclassical theory, have come to appreciate its power and logic, and
see ecological economics as damaging to the theory and thus their
identities. Do they fear fundamental changes to their theory will
threaten their abilities to function as the economists they are? They
may envision little role for themselves in a radically changed system.
Mark Montgomery, economics professor at Grinell College seems to
express such fear when he writes on American.com, "There is plenty of
evidence that environmentalists under the ecology banner want to get
rid of us economists." Are mainstream economists simply working, then,
to preserve their professional identity?

Resisting their own rescuers?

The irony is that if mainstream economists have their way, and
economic policy continues on its present course, the outcome will be
exactly what they likely fear -- the crumbling of their profession (as
well as many others). Conventional economic growth is destroying the
ecosystem. If allowed to go too far, then without a viable ecosystem
what sort of economy will there be? And how will conventional
economists function? In an apocalyptic future they're history. In the
context of a more intact but still highly eroded ecosystem and human
society, their role will at best be radically altered.

The irony only increases as we recognize that the ecological
economists the mainstreamers resist are fighting to preserve the
ecosystem, which includes the very profession the mainstreamers fear
losing. Ecological economists are, in effect, trying to save their
mainstream counterparts from their own professional (and possibly
biological) self-destruction. But the mainstreamers can't see it.

And it may be worse than that. An increasing number of analysts
maintain the policies driving economic activity to date have already
done too much damage to prevent societal collapse in the coming
decades. The convergence of our population's continuing overshoot of
the earth's carrying capacity, the peaking of oil production,
biodiversity loss, and a laundry list of other ecological problems may
be too much for any late stage corrective efforts to overcome. Peak
oil activist, Paul Chefurka, who constructs well researched analyses
of the state of our ecological crisis, minces no words in writing, "My
conclusion is that humanity is facing an imminent, inevitable and
irrevocable collapse, incorporating both a severe population dieoff
and the loss of most of our technological civilization." If such
predictions prove true, mainstream economists will at some point
realize their work contributed heavily to their own, and nearly
everyone else's, demise.

Other analysts do hold out hope that humanity will find a way to
transition, with great difficulty, to a sustainable society, averting
unthinkable cataclysm. At the least, they push for actions which would
soften the landing in the event of some degree of societal collapse.
Such scenarios will take courageous, committed policy, unprecedented
international cooperation, and a willingness on the part of many
leaders to put aside the corporate and self-interests to which they
cling. Ecological economics offers a key vision for such an
undertaking.

So this is a plea to mainstream economists: Please consider putting
the state of the earth and human society ahead of your professional
status. Surely you recognize that your "ecological" counterparts are
right about the relationship between the ecosystem and the economy.
Quibble over theoretic minutiae if you will, but gather your courage
and embrace at least that crucial point. In so doing you'll be in a
position to engender hope at a turning point in human history.

* * * * *

John Feeney, Ph.D., is a psychologist turned environmental activist. He is based in Boulder, Colorado,
where he writes on ecological topics at his website, Growth is Madness!
growthmadness.org

*******

[1] Ecological economics overlaps closely with "green economics," and
can be seen as a part of the "Post-Autistic Economics" movement.

[2] To avoid oversimplification, note that the ecological economics
and environmental economics camps are not always warring. There is,
from time to time, constructive discussion between them. Still, let's
hope the latter group gives up its homicidal tendencies.